The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum of Broken Memories[edit]

The Museum of Broken Memories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, there's one source from JayIsGames on the game, but as I've argued previously on User:DustFormsWords talk page, I do not think it holds up to WP:IRS: "JayIsGames is a blog - I'm sure it's the major news source for people interested in casual games, but popularity alone does not mean it's a reliable source. It's certainly NOT a mainstream news source - it's still a blog, albeit a high-traffic one. It's run by a man without any education in journalism or publishing, and I would guess the majority of the reviewers likewise lack any formal education in journalism. We also know nothing of their editorial policies. Do we have any well-established reliable sources covering them in detail? Not that I can find." Filibusti (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Five minutes of searching found several reviews covering this game by reliable sources. I must strongly recommend that Filibusti actually involve himself with the developers in a communal way as opposed to jumping the gun to attempt to delete articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to these reviews from RS's. I can't find any. Also, please stop trying to make this a matter of me, the discussion is on whether the article is notable or not. Filibusti (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant reliable sources/reviews to indicate notability of this game. Goodvac (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Five minutes of searching. At the very least, the article should be implemented into the parent article Jonas Kyratzes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First 2 are from JustAdventures, which I don't know if it is a WP:RS or not. Third has no content. Fourth is about the developer, not the game. Fifth has not content, just lists system specs. Ravendrop 09:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just Adventure is indeed an RS; see here: WP:VG/RS. And while the remaining three are not directly demonstrating notability, it demonstrates that deletion is not the answer in this case, and that there may me more coverage if we were to dig deeper. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Ravendrop. I just edit conflicted with you, so I'll just post what I was going to say just in case it hasn't already been said.
      None of those sources are even remotely reliable. Source 1 and Source 2 are absolutely unreliable because the website's "About Us" page states, "If you would like to have your independently developed games listed here, please email." This site in effect lists any and every game they are emailed. Source 3 is not even a significant review; it's just a listing. Source 4 is merely a passing mention. Source 5 is another listing—no review. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • • "If you would like to have your independently developed games listed here, please email" shows us their policy for being contacted; you wrote "This site in effect lists any and every game they are emailed." but in fact we have no indication whatsoever about their policy for inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you would like to argue that JustAdventure is not reliable, please take it up with the people who declared it as such. The About Us page does not say that any independently developed video game will be included; it merely explains to independent developers that they can contact them if they want to submit their video game for inclusion. Finally, do you presume to argue that the inclusion of a video game on their web site is accompanied by a review and an interview with its developer? I do not see anything in the About Us page that suggests that for even a moment. To quote the Video game Sources' description of the web site: "The site and it's staff have been cited in numerous publications and have been the subject of multiple interviews by online gaming news sites with several of its members receiving prestigous awards for their work." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • A few editors on WikiProject Video Games do not constitute a consensus in determining whether a source is reliable. WP:VG/RS is not a policy or guideline accepted by the wider Wikipedia community. Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources states, "This page reflects the consensus of the Video games Project". A WikiProject's view does not override the view of the broader Wikipedia community.
          The sources in particular are unreliable. I will not argue as to the reliability of the site as a whole. I will simply illustrate why the two JustAdventures sources you provided do not meet the caliber of WP:RS and WP:V required by Wikipedia policy.
          
          1. The first paragraph of [6]:

          Synchronicty. It's the term philosophers use to descibre coincidence and how random things almost seem to happen for a reason. Synchronicity is when you've searched everywhere for a particular book, every library and bookstore in your area has been scorued. You are all set to give up when you stumble upon a copy left behind on the very parkbench you choose to rest at. Synchronicity is when Jonas Kyratzes contacted me out of the blue about his new game, which I had not heard of. It is the same force in action that saw me offered the opportunity ot review the game shrotly after.

          This paragraph contains numerous spelling errors. To name a few, "Synchonicty", "descibre", "shrotly", "scorued", and "ot". A reliable source would have received editorial oversight to correct these errors. One or two typos does not discount an article from being reliable. But when the entire article is peppered with spelling errors, one must wonder how much editorial oversight it has received. Second, the author of the source states: "Jonas Kyratzes contacted me out of the blue about his new game, which I had not heard of". The developer of the video game's seeking publicity from an unreliable source does not establish notability.
          
          2. [7]: "It all started with an email" (from the developer). This email interview conducted by the same author as the previous debunked source certainly does not establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your logic seeks to make it that much more difficult to establish reliable sources, and to denounce the "few editors" who, in an established process, felt that Just Adventure met the threshold of reliability, is to denounce a system that seeks to make articles of higher quality (if you'll note the much-higher average quality found in video game articles due to the synthesis of people finding the sources). Without consensus, what possible way can we EVER verify what sources are reliable? Are you implying that video game editors are biased toward declaring sources reliable? Are you implying that one of the driving forces behind its declaration as reliable - User:David Fuchs, an administrator and Arbitrator, who has written many featured articles and even written an essay on featuring articles - has a poor grasp of what is a reliable source? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I notice the logical fallacy appeal to authority in action here. Goodvac (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • • Hm. Did you notice that he is discussing actual WP policy? Although the letter of WP policy is occasionally taken far too seriously and the spirit of it is often subverted, I see that you believe in the authority of WP policy enough to quote RS and V yourself. While Just Adventure is on that page, it is a RS, as far as Wikipedians are concerned. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I notice a lack of proper response. Great to see an editor focus on the fact that I used his status as an administrator as evidence of his know-how. Not the many articles that he increased to featured quality that he had made over the years that he has edited here, thereby proving my point that you have no valid claim against Just Adventure of being unreliable if your best argument is that a system where a few editors make a decision on the reliability of sources is not a proper system (which entails no proper system to ever verify if any sources are reliable, ever). Kudos. Would you care to explain to me a better way to determine reliability on sources outside of a lengthy case-by-case basis? Outside of a system controlled by administrators, which you would obviously disagree with since it would be implying that administrators should be the only ones with control over reliable references, how could we possibly determine reliability in sources without forming a consensus as is done on the WP:VG/RS page? Again, I must ask if you are implying if video game editors have a cabal to make unreliable sources reliable? Otherwise, why is such a system less viable than Articles for deletion? What makes this very discussion valid? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please, your rants aren't getting you anywhere. I am no longer arguing the unreliability of JustAdventure as a whole. A case-by-case basis is the best way to go about examining the sources. Please explain how a review riddled with excessive spelling errors (thus indicating a lack of editorial oversight) and an interview personally initiated by the developer establishes notability of this game. Goodvac (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Delete while there's some reliable coverage, it isn't significant enough to merit inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Implement these sources, and see how the article looks then. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain which sources, when implemented into the article, will allow The Museum of Broken Memories to pass the notability guidelines. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I believe the accepted notability guideline for software is WP:NSOFT. I summarize it's criteria as whether the software is:

1. influential (in its field),
2. used as an example in teaching,
3. often referenced (reviews, walk-throughs, parodied, etc), or
4. historically significant.

The sources discussed above don't appear to establish any of these requirements. They might serve to establish the author/artist's notability, but WP:INHERIT. Speed8ump (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, those are not 'requirements', since they are not exclusive. As with all such lists, an article that meets -any- of those criteria is acceptable. Secondly nobody seems to get that the criteria for deletion is and always will be WP:DEL. Criteria for computer/video game article content, which applies mostly to the talk page, is at WP:VG/GL Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The proposal for discussion is actually focused on the lack of reliable sources, rather than secondary criteria. An article may not meet the secondary criteria, but still meet notability through the general notability guidelines. That said, the notability of software is a bit different from that of video games. You can view the current proposal and participate in the discussion here. Cind.amuse 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources have been shown to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please list the sources you believe establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• the two sources from justadventure, and I think jayisgames is a RS in this context due to the editorial oversight. And while your arguments about justadventure have merit, it seems to also be a reliable source (if one that needs a spellcheck). Hobit (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does it say that Jay Is Games has editorial oversight? Goodvac (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Just Adventure review and Jay is Games review carry just enough usable content IMO for an article in terms of notability, the presence of an interview also helps a little. Just Adventure is a long established specialist website, relevant to this subject. Jay is Games does have a reviews editor, regardless they are again long established in this area and their viewpoint is relevant. To discount them as reliable sources just because they don't lay their editing policies out on a platter just in case we wikicritters need everything spelling out is taking WP:RS beyond the bounds of common sense. It's an independent video game, not aircraft design or trigonometry. Someoneanother 20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me put it another way. On the 1st of January 2008 that interview states "I'm John Bardinelli (JohnB), a freelance writer who stumbled into video game journalism about five years ago." His latest post on JiG is today: [8], he's still there. At what point is this man supposed to get a seal of approval as an expert on indie games? Who's supposed to come along and bestow that on him? There has to be a point where the site's content is reliable enough to cover its own area, within which it is a major site. This is not a BLP, this is not a technical or academic area, this is not an area where more commercial sites or printed magazines cover in anything like the same depth. Its usage does not damage WP, but refusing it as a source because it doesn't pass between some hazy goalposts denies WP content, which is another matter. Someoneanother 22:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If those sources are considered reliable ones, then its fine. Jay is Games started with just one guy, but added others over time. Their spelling or writing ability is not relevant in any way. You are more likely to get an honest review from sites like this, than a printed magazine that sustains itself entirely by ads from the major game companies it reviews games of. Dream Focus 01:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, dat. The IGN network also has very poor coverage of early vid games, which indicates they do not do research, because there is a relatively tiny number of early games to cover. Therefore it is also likely they are getting their information from the devs. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I did not feel that I had the knowledge to make a comment on the game, but having looked into the references as a result of looking at the designers page. I would have to agree the deeper you look the less they seem to come from RS. If the game has sufficient novelty it might still pass the inclusion criteria for GNG and certainly the very small number of users who appear to have found the game comment favourably but there doesn't seem to be an independent expert source that supports this view so it would probably count as original research or POV.Tetron76 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.